Tavisha Hotel and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs Monte Grand Country Resor(Skywood Hotel and Resort)

By virtue of present peti t ion, petitioners are praying for quashing order dated 2.8.2025 (Annexu r e P-12) passed by learned Judi c ial Magistra t e Ist Class, SAS Nagar in NAC T case No. 473-2021, titled “M o nte Grand C o untry Resort v. Tavisha Hotel and Resort Pvt. Ltd.”, vide w h ich applicati o n filed by complainant-resp o ndent under Section 143-A of Negotiab l e Instruments Act (in short “N I Act”) was allowed and petitio n ers were dire c ted to deposit 15% of the cheq u e amount.

¶13

Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on recor d be noticed h e reinbelow:-

¶14

NACT Case No. 473-2021, t i tled “Monte Grand Country Re s ort v. Tavish a Hotel and Resort Pvt. Ltd.”, w as filed by complainant-respon d ent through its Director Ravi Jagwani agai n st petitioners alleging therein t hat petitione r s and accused No.3 approached complainant with a reques t to allow the m to occupy the premises of res p ondent on lease basis for a pe r iod of five ye a rs. Offer was accepted. Part i es agreed that lease money w o uld

¶15

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-65267-2025 -2-

¶17

be Rs.1,5 0 ,000/- per month. Complaina n t alleged that in discharge of l e gal liability a gainst the lease money, two ch e ques (details mentioned in pa r a 6 of the co m plaint) were issued by petiti o ners, which when presented w ere dishonou r ed. Pursuant thereto, legal n o tice was issued upon them. Since the need f ul was not done by petitioner s , hence, the complaint was fi l ed. After pre l iminary evidence was recorded, petitioners were summoned to f ace trial und e r Section 138 of NI Act vide or d er dated 10.10.2022 (Annexur e P6).

¶18

Documents appended along with the petition reveal that b oth the comp l aint and summoning order wer e assailed by petitioners before t his Court in C RM-M-51886-2023, where, n o tice of motion has been issue d to responde n t-complainant.

¶19

Meanwhile, during the pen d ency of the complaint (NACT N o. 473/2021, titled ‘Monte Grand Country R esort v. Tavisha Hotel and Res o rts Pvt. Ltd. and others’), application in qu e stion dated 5.3.2025 (Annexur e P- 10) unde r Section 143-A of NI Act was f i led vide which prayer was mad e to direct p e titioners to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as inte r im compens a tion. Detailed reply was filed b y present petitioners opposing the same. H o wever, in terms of impugned o rder dated 2.8.2025 (Annexur e P- 12), application was allowed and petition e rs were directed to deposit 15 % of the cheq u e amount.

¶20

In brief, the submission of l e arned counsel for petitioners is t hat the plea s taken by them in the repl y dated 24.4.2025 have not been addresse d /taken note of by learned trial C ourt, which has passed the order in a routine mechanical manner. Disputed q uestions of law and fact are yet to be adjudi c ated, finding recorded by learn e d trial Court are totally contrar y to the pleas raised by the petitioners. Furt h er, even the judgments referre d to

¶21

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-65267-2025 -3-

¶23

by petiti o ners were neither discussed no r dealt with by learned trial Court. Learned c ounsel next submits that respo n dent-complainant did not approach the Cour t with clean hands inasmuch a s the factum of petitioners-acc u sed having re p lied to the legal notice served u pon them, was also not mentio n ed in the co m plaint. It is in the light of sub m issions advanced hereinabove, t hat prayer h a s been made to direct learned t rial Court to pass a well reaso n ed speaking order by taking note of the pl e as raised by the petitioners in the reply.

¶24

Heard. Contents of reply dated 24.4.2025 filed by petitio n ers perused a s also the impugned order dat e d 2.8.2025 (Annexure P-12) have been rea d .

¶25

In view of the prayer m ade by learned counsel for the petitione r s and in the interest of justic e , matter is remanded back to the learned t rial Court to decide the a p plication moved by respond e ntcomplain a nt afresh, after discussing/de a ling with the pleas raised by the accused- p etitioners in reply, in accordan c e with law. Needful be done, after hearing b oth the parties, within a perio d of four weeks from the dat e of receipt o f certified copy of the order.

¶26

Petition stands disposed of a c cordingly.

¶27

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) 21.11.20 2 5 JUDGE gbs

¶28

Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶29

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.28 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Tavisha Hotel and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Monte Grand Country Resor(Skywood Hotel and Resort)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tavisha Hotel and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Monte Grand Country Resor(Skywood Hotel and Resort)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankhuri Ohri Alias Pankhuri Garg Vs State Bank of India and Another

Manpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukhbir Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab

Deepak @ Hooter Vs State of Haryana

Rihan Khan Vs State of Haryana

Lovepreet Singh Alias Love Vs State of Punjab